Can people delete my logs if I don't sign them?

[+power69]

So can someone delete my logs if they chose too?

No scribble, no smilie.

[Clan Riffster]

I just had a thought-has anyone ever seen Pinehurst and Coldgears together?

If I ever see those two, Ashnikes, and Ringbone, in the same place, I'll probably faint.

[+CachinStrattons]

No scribble, no smilie.

No Chicken, No Check!

[+edscott]

Wow, I thought that Groundspeak covered people when they found a cache and the cache owner deleted it.

 

Thanks for the responses, while I don't agree with having to sign a log to log as "found" I guess I'll have too now for the security of not having them deleted.

 

Yup... I'd guess you are correct on this point.

[Pup Patrol]

Where did Coldgears go?

 

[GOF and Bacall]

Where did Coldgears go?

 

 

Out for coffee and a donut?

[4wheelin_fool]

Where did Coldgears go?

 

 

Out for coffee and a donut?

 

No, he's revisiting a few caches.

[Pup Patrol]

No, he's revisiting a few caches.

 

With pen in hand, hopefully.

[+Max and 99]

I don't see the point, the fun for me is finding it.

 

If that's the case, a cache owner deleting your online log would not deny you your fun, would it?

 

Best response yet!

[I!]

Surprising that nobody has mentioned the tree climb cache example yet...

That's easy. Take a chainsaw to the tree and sign the ... oh, never mind

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Wow, I thought that Groundspeak covered people when they found a cache and the cache owner deleted it.

 

Thanks for the responses, while I don't agree with having to sign a log to log as "found" I guess I'll have too now for the security of not having them deleted.

Troll or not, some n00b might read this so here goes:

 

One of the fundamental rules of geocaching is that you sign the logbook (take something from the cache, leave something in the cache, write about it in the logbook). Geocaching.com believes every cache must have a logbook (see the guidelines) which implies that you sign it to prove you found the cache. They also give the cache owner to delete bogus logs. If you can't prove by your signature in the log that you found the cache, your log may be deleted by the cache owner.

 

Yes, caches do go missing, logbooks get wet and become unreadable, etc., so sometimes you can't verify if someone actually signed the physical log. Those are the exception, not the rule though. If you practice never signing the log, expect to have finds deleted if the owner is actually checking.

[+Sol seaker]

Surprising that nobody has mentioned the tree climb cache example yet...

 

Hey, I SAW the cache. Wasn't that good enough?

[+Chrysalides]

Hey, I SAW the cache. Wasn't that good enough?

I read the cache page, viewed the location on Google Earth, and visualized myself getting the cache

 

I like the "pot stirring spoon" remark by GOF. A new entry in my lexicon.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Chrysalides

[+sbell111]

I find it interesting you dont have time to scribble your initials. But as of right now have 430 more forum postings than finds

 

edit check that 431

 

+1

The number of posts in an internet forum is a poor indicator of free time.

[GOF and Bacall]

Hey, I SAW the cache. Wasn't that good enough?

I read the cache page, viewed the location on Google Earth, and visualized myself getting the cache

 

I like the "pot stirring spoon" remark by GOF. A new entry in my lexicon.

 

You're welcome.

[+lamoracke]

another person logs my cache like this today...

 

"Once again was too excited about the hunt and left my pen in the car so I didn't sign the log book! Tftc!"

 

Super annoying. Have asked them to tell me what the cache was like and to edit their log to remove the fact they did not sign. Its an easy cache, but I think its almost taunting to tell the owner you did not sign it. If I get no response, I suppose I will delete it.

[+dreamarcher]

I guess it's too hard to bring your own pen, or maybe too hard to have any respect for anybody. You know because everything else in life is easy and handed to you. Seriously, Coldgears, you're the biggest douche on this forum and everybody knows it.

 

Only time I don't sign is when it's not possible. i.e. log is soggy, full, missing, etc. In this case I usually leave a comment reflecting what I found.

Edited March 10, 2011 by dreamarcher

[knowschad]

Seriously, Coldgears, you're the biggest douche on this forum and everybody knows it.

Quoting you so you can't edit your post. At least Coldgears doesn't insult his fellow cachers.

[+dreamarcher]

Seriously, Coldgears, you're the biggest douche on this forum and everybody knows it.

Quoting you so you can't edit your post. At least Coldgears doesn't insult his fellow cachers.

Oh you're the cleaver one. I'm so scared. What are you, 12?

 

Actually he has and I'm just in the mood to point it out. Thanks for asking.

Edited March 10, 2011 by dreamarcher

[knowschad]

Seriously, Coldgears, you're the biggest douche on this forum and everybody knows it.

Quoting you so you can't edit your post. At least Coldgears doesn't insult his fellow cachers.

Oh you're the cleaver one. I'm so scared. What are you, 12?

 

Actually he has and I'm just in the mood to point it out. Thanks for asking.

I'm not, but Coldgears isn't much older than that. And I count him as a friend.

[+mpilchfamily]

Time restraints is just one of the reasons why I don't bother, I also don't like writing my name, I don't see the point, the fun for me is finding it.

 

If the fun is finding it and you don't feel the need to sign the log then why log the find online?

[Keystone]

My powers have been employed to rid this thread of all that is odious and in disharmony with the forum guidelines. Having done my work, the thread is now left sweet smelling... with a faint scent of coffee and donuts in the air.

 

I suppose that technically makes me a douche!

 

Now, get back to whatever you all were supposed to be talking about. Thanks!

[+Sol seaker]

My powers have been employed to rid this thread of all that is odious and in disharmony with the forum guidelines. Having done my work, the thread is now left sweet smelling... with a faint scent of coffee and donuts in the air.

 

I suppose that technically makes me a douche!

 

Now, get back to whatever you all were supposed to be talking about. Thanks!

 

Thank you so much Keystone!!

 

That left me smelling coffee and doughnuts and laughing my head off.

 

Much better.

[+WRASTRO]

My powers have been employed to rid this thread of all that is odious and in disharmony with the forum guidelines. Having done my work, the thread is now left sweet smelling... with a faint scent of coffee and donuts in the air.

 

I suppose that technically makes me a douche!

 

Now, get back to whatever you all were supposed to be talking about. Thanks!

 

Thank you so much Keystone!!

 

That left me smelling coffee and doughnuts and laughing my head off.

 

Much better.

Those supposedly sweet smelling posts were still managing to stink up my visit to this thread tonight.

 

I really do not understand why some feel the need to pee or poo or whatever it is they think they are doing when they drop those bombs. At least I can be secure in the knowledge that those who choose to drop such bombs are not associated in any way with higher education.

 

OT: I am not amused when cachers choose to log finds on my caches and state in their logs they did not manage to sign the cache log. We have conversations via email and the situations are resolved peacefully and without the need for using streams of water.

[+wolfslady]

I hate micros but if one is nearby and I'm in the mood I will sign the log. If it was OK to not sign the log I could have at least dozen more. If Just driving past within 10' and being sure it was there was good enough more like 50 more finds. I have had a few cases where it was impossible to sign the log but I at least attempted to make a mark. (see that little squiggle in the tear at the bottom of the disintegrating paper, that's my mark. LOL) I had one cache in S. FL where I really wanted to dip or leave some TB's so I looked for one that wasn't a micro and took a really short hike to the cache only to discover that it didn't have a pen. Rotten thing. Normally it would not have been a problem but I was driving my brothers old junker and there was nothing to write with in the thing. I got ill and never got to find another cache while I was down there so I was very disappointed that those bugs didn't get the mileage before I headed back to Texas. I guess I could have logged it but it just didn't seem right. The irony is I usually carry several extra small pencils and regular size pens in my geobag so I can leave one in cases like this and it didn’t even occur to me until there was no pen that I wasn’t in my own car and I didn’t have anything with me. I sure wish we didn't have sign those micros to claim a find, some of them are a real chore to get the logs back into. Another reason I don't care for them. Although I've found a couple that were hidden in a unique way that I enjoyed.

 

[+Bergie Bunch]

Wow, must be a silver spoon, he is getting replies from serious vets.....Maybe we should nominate him for the golden troll award.

[+MontyFam]

LOL nice cleansing!

[+escomag]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

 

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos?

What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find.

[+StarBrand]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

Get a finer point pen/pencil.

[+escomag]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

 

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos?

What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find.

That is not a fair answer. I can find nanos, just not easily sign them. Its hard enough to un roll the log, find a place to make a mark and re-roll. I do take the time to do that much. Otherwise, the best thing I could offer, would a preprinted piece of paper. I would have to throw out the old log, but I would at least have the find.

Could I create a cache that the log was individual rice grains, and to log a find you had to clearly write your handle and date on a grain?

[+Chokecherry]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

 

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos?

What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find.

That is not a fair answer. I can find nanos, just not easily sign them. Its hard enough to un roll the log, find a place to make a mark and re-roll. I do take the time to do that much. Otherwise, the best thing I could offer, would a preprinted piece of paper. I would have to throw out the old log, but I would at least have the find.

Could I create a cache that the log was individual rice grains, and to log a find you had to clearly write your handle and date on a grain?

 

I have a hard time manipulating the nanos too. I'll patiently tweeze the little thing out and patiently unroll only to find in most cases that the log filled up ages ago. Half the time at that point I want to just take the log and throw it out or take it with me and leave a NM on the cache stating that if the cache owner would have bothered to do some maintenance I would have bothered to put the log back as I had found it. Never have done it but it's been tempting.

[+escomag]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

Get a finer point pen/pencil.

I lack the hand/eye coordination. I was so far back in elementary school handwriting, that my 5th grade teacher told me that while I was still going to practice writing, I was also going to have some special time to learn to type. This has no way an affect on my being able to find a cache.

 

In all honesty, why does this bother some cachers so much? My opinion is that any cache with a rating of 3.5/3.5, or less, who compares physical logs with online is way to anal to play this game. Let the poor saps who claim a bogus find alone

 

Fine. You want to compare logs? You better be maintaining your cache. You challenge me on your 'Wall of Death', cache after email verification, you better have grabbed the physical log yourself. I'll show you my Mark.

[+mpilchfamily]

IMO if you make a mark on the log you got the find. If you mention your make in the online log that's even better for me as a CO. Then i know who's mark it is so if i wanted to inventory the logs i could.

 

Not to long ago i fond a nano that had just gotten a new log. The log the CO put in it was more plastic then anything. No matter what pen i used it wouldn't write or the ink wouldn't stick. But my ballpoint pen did indent my name into the log. So it is viable but not actually inked in. I did not this in my online log so the CO would be aware of it and might even put an actual paper log in the cache.

 

BTW, bogus logs don't bother me unless they are painful obvious about it. Then they need to be delete. Otherwise it feels like a slap in the face. Like they are taunting you saying i didn't even attempt it but wanted to make sure you knew i didn't even think about trying.

[knowschad]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

 

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos?

What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find.

That is not a fair answer. I can find nanos, just not easily sign them. Its hard enough to un roll the log, find a place to make a mark and re-roll. I do take the time to do that much. Otherwise, the best thing I could offer, would a preprinted piece of paper. I would have to throw out the old log, but I would at least have the find.

Could I create a cache that the log was individual rice grains, and to log a find you had to clearly write your handle and date on a grain?

 

We all have those problems, but we still manage to get the job done. If you can't take the time to unroll/sign/reroll, then don't log it. Harry's response was right on the mark, IMO.

 

Your strawman is being ignored, as it should be.

[knowschad]

IMO if you make a mark on the log you got the find. If you mention your make in the online log that's even better for me as a CO. Then i know who's mark it is so if i wanted to inventory the logs i could.

 

Not to long ago i fond a nano that had just gotten a new log. The log the CO put in it was more plastic then anything. No matter what pen i used it wouldn't write or the ink wouldn't stick. But my ballpoint pen did indent my name into the log. So it is viable but not actually inked in. I did not this in my online log so the CO would be aware of it and might even put an actual paper log in the cache.

 

BTW, bogus logs don't bother me unless they are painful obvious about it. Then they need to be delete. Otherwise it feels like a slap in the face. Like they are taunting you saying i didn't even attempt it but wanted to make sure you knew i didn't even think about trying.

 

Your example is a lot different than simply not bothering to try to sign because rolling/unrolling takes too long.

Edited March 15, 2011 by knowschad

[+StarBrand]

IMO if you make a mark on the log you got the find. If you mention your make in the online log that's even better for me as a CO. Then i know who's mark it is so if i wanted to inventory the logs i could.

 

Not to long ago i fond a nano that had just gotten a new log. The log the CO put in it was more plastic then anything. No matter what pen i used it wouldn't write or the ink wouldn't stick. But my ballpoint pen did indent my name into the log. So it is viable but not actually inked in. I did not this in my online log so the CO would be aware of it and might even put an actual paper log in the cache.

 

BTW, bogus logs don't bother me unless they are painful obvious about it. Then they need to be delete. Otherwise it feels like a slap in the face. Like they are taunting you saying i didn't even attempt it but wanted to make sure you knew i didn't even think about trying.

 

Your example is a lot different than simply not bothering to try to sign because rolling/unrolling takes too long.

 

yup - I'm fine with some kind of unique mark but not signing at all is the issue.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Your example is a lot different than simply not bothering to try to sign because rolling/unrolling takes too long.

I believe escomag confirmed unrolling, making a mark, and re-rolling. Liking it isn't necessary, is it?

[+hotshoe]

I never sign nanos and only occasionally on micros. I just can not write anything clearly that small. I just place a blue dot from a sharpie on the log. Nobody has questioned it so far. My one log deletion was allowed when I described the cache to the CO. I will admit that I bristled a bit at the suggestion that I return and write clearly.

 

Then perhaps, you should stop searching for nanos?

What I find presumptuous is cachers noting on the log that they didn't bother to sign the cache. Ya know, if you hadn't slapped me in the face with that, I probably would never have noticed. But, if you're going to point it out to me, I will delete the log! (Not aimed at escomag, but at the cacher who noted than on the log.) I sent him an e-mail that he did not qualify for a find.

That is not a fair answer. I can find nanos, just not easily sign them. Its hard enough to un roll the log, find a place to make a mark and re-roll. I do take the time to do that much. Otherwise, the best thing I could offer, would a preprinted piece of paper. I would have to throw out the old log, but I would at least have the find.

Could I create a cache that the log was individual rice grains, and to log a find you had to clearly write your handle and date on a grain?

 

We all have those problems, but we still manage to get the job done. If you can't take the time to unroll/sign/reroll, then don't log it. Harry's response was right on the mark, IMO.

 

Your strawman is being ignored, as it should be.

 

You're wrong to take that scolding tone. Escomag clearly states that s/he takes the time to unroll/make a mark/reroll, so you have zero grounds for complaint.

 

Maybe you should learn a little compassion for your fellow humans, who don't all have perfect eyesight and perfect hand/eye coordination and a perfect level of health that would allow them to sign legibly in a nano's tiny space.

 

I would a lot rather escomag puts a Sharpie dot on my nano cache log than scribble something I couldn't read anyways and take up two spaces doing it.

Edited March 15, 2011 by hotshoe